Lancer wrote:
Yeah, basically they are throwing out the common-law concept of precedence - unless it suits them. No precedence on which to base any interpretation of the rules or any application of discipline... Mao and Stalin would be proud.

Uhmmmmmm No.

If you did read Gary's statement you would have noted where during the appeal hearing Shanahan noted several several cases of precedent and Gary elaborated on the similarities and differences to the case before him.

In fact he used those precedents to lay the groundwork against any further appeal to an independent arbitrator while suggesting that Thornton was let off lightly because of his clean record.

The key was that Thornton admitted he identified Orpik in the scrum before skating around to target him.

Topper [color=#FF0000]Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:32 am[/color] wrote:This is because injury is a factor in Shanahan's decision process. It is a something I have never been able to accept.

It is a clear violation of the rules and deliberately targeted Zetterberg's head. Injury or not, if you are indeed serious about removing head shot injuries from the game, that is an offence worthy of a suspension.

Topper [color=#FF0000]Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:18 am[/color] wrote:Shanahan has screwed the pooch and will suffer for it. With the Weber fine/non suspension he lost not only in the court of public opinion but also lost respect among the coaches and players. his desperate scramble to reel things back is a running joke.

After Bertuzzi fought Weber, here is what one of Shanahan's go to organizations had to say

“Sometimes when things don’t get looked after, you have to look after it yourself,”

Those were the words of Bruce Babcock.

As Shanahan tries to make ammends for the Weber gaff, he hands out a suspension to Hagelin for the elbow to Alfie, and this is what The Rangers, as an organization have to say.

"thoroughly perplexed in the ruling's inconsistency with other supplementary discipline decisions that have been made throughout this season and during the playoffs."

Topper [color=#FF0000]Sat May 04, 2013 7:48 am[/color] wrote:
Interesting to compare the detail of Shanny the media whore's review of the Ellar hit with the detail and supposition he went into with the Hansen/Hossa hit.

Topper [color=#FF0000]Thu May 16, 2013 2:52 pm[/color] wrote:
Fuck me sideways blue and gently. Shanny the media whore goes into wild speculation as he did with the Hansen call. How does he get principle point of content as the head other than through by using a ouiji board?

Topper [color=#FF0000]Sun May 19, 2013 10:40 am[/color] wrote:I heartily endorse what Doug Wilson said about Shanny the media whore's discipline of Torres (Wilson: “"It is abundantly clear that this was a clean hockey hit").

So it cost the Sharks $100K, it needed to be said and more teams need to follow through similarly and do so with a Shanny the media whore like video.

Topper [color=#FF0000]Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:35 am[/color] wrote:Shanny the media whore completely missed that this was a blow to the head that caused injury Combine that with retaliatory, a word Shanny the media whore used several times, and you may have something.

Watch the video and the reasons highlighted for the suspension.
High stick
Previous offender
Injury.

Hey Shanny the media whore, how about,
Retaliatory blow to the head with a high stick
Previous offender
Injury (a feature of the suspensions I find ludicrous)
Now tell us that is one game.
Oh yes, "may have or may not have hit Keith's hand" and then zooms in to show stick on empty glove. As HW noted, cross reference this with the wild conjecture and ouji board mind reading that he used in explaining Hansen's 2 games.

If you did read Gary's statement you would have noted where during the appeal hearing Shanahan noted several several cases of precedent and Gary elaborated on the similarities and differences to the case before him.

Uhmmmmmm No.

If you read Bettman's statement, Bettman + Shanny shot down 'cases of precedent' presented by the NHLPA.

The NHLPA's appeal on behalf of Thornton was based on three articles of contention:

1) Thornton's clean record.

2) That Thornton’s actions were notpremeditated (Shanny had concluded the opposite).

3) Comparables (cases of precedent).

Bettman's ruling:

1). Thornton's clean record was clearly taken into account by Shanahan in his original video.

2). Thornton accidentally gave himself away at the appeal (and premeditation was obvious anyway).

3). Comparables do not exist (and then talked a bit out the other side of his mouth in typical kangaroo fashion).

Topper wrote:
The key was that Thornton admitted he identified Orpik in the scrum before skating around to target him.

Actually, Bettman made it clear he had the power to increase the suspension based upon Thornton's denial.

Strangelove wrote:
3). Comparables do not exist (and then talked a bit out the other side of his mouth in typical kangaroo fashion).

The speaking out the side of his mouth that you note, he clearly says the three cases the Thornton incident resembles are the one noted by Shanahan. The Dale Hunter, Matt Johnson and Todd Bertuzzi incidents.

Strangelove wrote:
3). Comparables do not exist (and then talked a bit out the other side of his mouth in typical kangaroo fashion).

The speaking out the side of his mouth that you note, he clearly says the three cases the Thornton incident resembles are the one noted by Shanahan. The Dale Hunter, Matt Johnson and Todd Bertuzzi incidents.

Try to pay attention.

He's says IF comparables existed, THOSE would be closer than the ones the NHLPA presented.

And then he goes on to dismiss them because they are "10 to 20 years old" and they use new standards now.

If you did read Gary's statement you would have noted where during the appeal hearing Shanahan noted several several cases of precedent and Gary elaborated on the similarities and differences to the case before him.

From an outsider looking in, all I can say is that trying to interpret the CBA in a 'black and white' manner and then getting up in arms over the inevitable inconsistency is pointless. Shanahan tends to take a more wholistic big picture intuitive approach that ultimately serves the greater good of the game (atleast through his eyes).

Unfortunately, this "intuitive" shade-of-grey approach will show favoritism towards superstar players (I.e. Shea Weber, Duncan Keith, etc.), while placing a lot of emphasis on injury sustained rather than intent.

It's unfair, but it is what it is.

Last edited by The Brown Knight on Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Lancer wrote:
Yeah, basically they are throwing out the common-law concept of precedence - unless it suits them. No precedence on which to base any interpretation of the rules or any application of discipline... Mao and Stalin would be proud.

Uhmmmmmm No.

If you did read Gary's statement you would have noted where during the appeal hearing Shanahan noted several several cases of precedent and Gary elaborated on the similarities and differences to the case before him.

In fact he used those precedents to lay the groundwork against any further appeal to an independent arbitrator while suggesting that Thornton was let off lightly because of his clean record.

The key was that Thornton admitted he identified Orpik in the scrum before skating around to target him.

I might be taking a leap of faith, Tops, but maybe you just overlooked the bold portion. Of course they will trot out those precedents that suit them and toss those inconvenient bits of fact that stand in the way of their sham straight out of the Nazi Honour Courts.